*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

so OU man you are the ATT shill on this website huh? you're supposed to tell us its not ATT's fault they wouldn't do what EVERY other NATIONAL provider who services the St. Louis has done - make the extra 20 games available to hte consumers at no extra cost. it is laughable to me that ATT, one of the world's most gluttonous conglomerates, would hide behind the other 'mom and pop" operations in Cardinals' market who couldn't afford the extra pittence to carry the extra games

basically, ATT could buy and sell FSW Midwest 100 times over and not even notice - this is just complete bull and everyone knows it

that's just part of the public relations disaster which ATT seems to care little about, including direct misrepresentation of their product while trying to lure customers in - it is called "lying"

so OU man you are the ATT shill on this website huh? you're supposed to tell us its not ATT's fault they wouldn't do what EVERY other NATIONAL provider who services the St. Louis has done - make the extra 20 games available to hte consumers at no extra cost. it is laughable to me that ATT, one of the world's most gluttonous conglomerates, would hide behind the other 'mom and pop" operations in Cardinals' market who couldn't afford the extra pittence to carry the extra games

basically, ATT could buy and sell FSW Midwest 100 times over and not even notice - this is just complete bull and everyone knows it

that's just part of the public relations disaster which ATT seems to care little about, including direct misrepresentation of their product while trying to lure customers in - it is called "lying"

The people in customer service act like they are not aware of the situation unless you tell them you are aware of the blackout. I called 3 times to complain about the black out. The first agent gave me a $10 credit, and acted like he didn't know anything, the next one said he would call back in 30 minutes, and never did and the 3rd one told me that Att was not going to do anything and they did not care if I didn't like it go ahead and cancel my service. I finally asked to talk to a supervisor and the woman was very nice and did say she was taking a talley and forwarding the information on. Don't know if it is going to do anything or we can all just take rep number 3's advice and cancel our service since according to him Att does not care and will not do anything to satisfy there customers.

The people in customer service act like they are not aware of the situation unless you tell them you are aware of the blackout. I called 3 times to complain about the black out. The first agent gave me a $10 credit, and acted like he didn't know anything, the next one said he would call back in 30 minutes, and never did and the 3rd one told me that Att was not going to do anything and they did not care if I didn't like it go ahead and cancel my service. I finally asked to talk to a supervisor and the woman was very nice and did say she was taking a talley and forwarding the information on. Don't know if it is going to do anything or we can all just take rep number 3's advice and cancel our service since according to him Att does not care and will not do anything to satisfy there customers.

The people in customer service act like they are not aware of the situation unless you tell them you are aware of the blackout. I called 3 times to complain about the black out. The first agent gave me a $10 credit, and acted like he didn't know anything, the next one said he would call back in 30 minutes, and never did and the 3rd one told me that Att was not going to do anything and they did not care if I didn't like it go ahead and cancel my service. I finally asked to talk to a supervisor and the woman was very nice and did say she was taking a talley and forwarding the information on. Don't know if it is going to do anything or we can all just take rep number 3's advice and cancel our service since according to him Att does not care and will not do anything to satisfy there customers.

If you know about the situation with the 20 games that are in dispute, why did you call 3 times? What are you trying to accomplish?

bam1015 wrote:

The people in customer service act like they are not aware of the situation unless you tell them you are aware of the blackout. I called 3 times to complain about the black out. The first agent gave me a $10 credit, and acted like he didn't know anything, the next one said he would call back in 30 minutes, and never did and the 3rd one told me that Att was not going to do anything and they did not care if I didn't like it go ahead and cancel my service. I finally asked to talk to a supervisor and the woman was very nice and did say she was taking a talley and forwarding the information on. Don't know if it is going to do anything or we can all just take rep number 3's advice and cancel our service since according to him Att does not care and will not do anything to satisfy there customers.

If you know about the situation with the 20 games that are in dispute, why did you call 3 times? What are you trying to accomplish?

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

At the time I was calling I didn't know until the 2nd call when the guy did not call me back I looked online and found out what was going on, I called back because if someone is telling me they are going to call me back I expect them to call me back. And if you didn't realize it that is what customer service is for, if you have an issue or problem or complaint you call customer service and report the problem.

At the time I was calling I didn't know until the 2nd call when the guy did not call me back I looked online and found out what was going on, I called back because if someone is telling me they are going to call me back I expect them to call me back. And if you didn't realize it that is what customer service is for, if you have an issue or problem or complaint you call customer service and report the problem.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

just so we're clear ... you're saying what ATT is doing with the cardinals games in the st louis market is not misrepresentation? petty political idiocy? outright lying to paying customers?

in light of the fact that every other major carrier came across with the few extra coins to keep their customers happy, I'm just curious as to how the ATT spokesman can justify their actions in any way shape or form?

just so we're clear ... you're saying what ATT is doing with the cardinals games in the st louis market is not misrepresentation? petty political idiocy? outright lying to paying customers?

in light of the fact that every other major carrier came across with the few extra coins to keep their customers happy, I'm just curious as to how the ATT spokesman can justify their actions in any way shape or form?

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

I understand the frustration of Cardinal fans with the situation, but remember the chain of events:

AT&T signs a long term contract with Fox to carry FSMW at a given rate

Cardinals pull 20 games/season away from the OTA local stationCardinals sells the rights to carry those games to FSMW

FSMW refuses to let AT&T carry those games without paying extra money above the already signed contract

And AT&T is the bad guy?

You forgot the fifth event:

Every other provider, including tiny bit-players most people have never heard of, in the St. Louis metro area agrees to these supposedly exorbinant fees.

Oh, and for the people claiming that FSNMW is in "breach of contract", I would doubt this since the screen doesn't go blank during the games in question. FSNMW does air some rather lousy alternate content during these blocked games.

JefferMC wrote:

I understand the frustration of Cardinal fans with the situation, but remember the chain of events:

AT&T signs a long term contract with Fox to carry FSMW at a given rate

Cardinals pull 20 games/season away from the OTA local stationCardinals sells the rights to carry those games to FSMW

FSMW refuses to let AT&T carry those games without paying extra money above the already signed contract

And AT&T is the bad guy?

You forgot the fifth event:

Every other provider, including tiny bit-players most people have never heard of, in the St. Louis metro area agrees to these supposedly exorbinant fees.

Oh, and for the people claiming that FSNMW is in "breach of contract", I would doubt this since the screen doesn't go blank during the games in question. FSNMW does air some rather lousy alternate content during these blocked games.

Every other provider, including tiny bit-players most people have never heard of, in the St. Louis metro area agrees to these supposedly exorbinant fees.

Um, no. There are 21 providers listed by the Cardinals as not carrying these affected games. AT&T is only one of them. And if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump off, too?

bailorg wrote:

Oh, and for the people claiming that FSNMW is in "breach of contract", I would doubt this since the screen doesn't go blank during the games in question. FSNMW does air some rather lousy alternate content during these blocked games.

Which just goes to illustrate the FSMW is the party that has full control of whether AT&T gets these games or not as it is giving AT&T a feed without them.

bailorg wrote:

You forgot the fifth event:

Every other provider, including tiny bit-players most people have never heard of, in the St. Louis metro area agrees to these supposedly exorbinant fees.

Um, no. There are 21 providers listed by the Cardinals as not carrying these affected games. AT&T is only one of them. And if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump off, too?

bailorg wrote:

Oh, and for the people claiming that FSNMW is in "breach of contract", I would doubt this since the screen doesn't go blank during the games in question. FSNMW does air some rather lousy alternate content during these blocked games.

Which just goes to illustrate the FSMW is the party that has full control of whether AT&T gets these games or not as it is giving AT&T a feed without them.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

We have waited all winter for Cardinal's the games to start and listened to all the spring training we could on the radio. When the season starts we the fans are turned away because of an unsolved business deal. This shouldn't involve the fans!!

AT&T needs to come to an agreement with FSMW as the others have and keep the fans with their baseball.

AT&T should reimbuse us for the games not seen since we weren't getting our service as we paid for it.

We have waited all winter for Cardinal's the games to start and listened to all the spring training we could on the radio. When the season starts we the fans are turned away because of an unsolved business deal. This shouldn't involve the fans!!

AT&T needs to come to an agreement with FSMW as the others have and keep the fans with their baseball.

AT&T should reimbuse us for the games not seen since we weren't getting our service as we paid for it.

just so we're clear ... you're saying what ATT is doing with the cardinals games in the st louis market is not misrepresentation? petty political idiocy? outright lying to paying customers?

in light of the fact that every other major carrier came across with the few extra coins to keep their customers happy, I'm just curious as to how the ATT spokesman can justify their actions in any way shape or form?

I'm curious as to how any of what you said is true? Misrepresntation? How, they carry FSMW and 142 - nationally carried Cardinal games. Petty politial idiocy? Nope, it's all about the benajamins. AT&T and FSMW has a contract in place and now FSMW wants more money. AT&T ain't buying. Lying? How are they lying?

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway

craig2914 wrote:

just so we're clear ... you're saying what ATT is doing with the cardinals games in the st louis market is not misrepresentation? petty political idiocy? outright lying to paying customers?

in light of the fact that every other major carrier came across with the few extra coins to keep their customers happy, I'm just curious as to how the ATT spokesman can justify their actions in any way shape or form?

I'm curious as to how any of what you said is true? Misrepresntation? How, they carry FSMW and 142 - nationally carried Cardinal games. Petty politial idiocy? Nope, it's all about the benajamins. AT&T and FSMW has a contract in place and now FSMW wants more money. AT&T ain't buying. Lying? How are they lying?

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

If the agreement was for 140 games then FSMW owes AT&T nothing and is well within their rights to request more money for the extra games.

That's an odd comment. FSMW will broadcast 150 Cardinals games this year. 20 of those games will be withheld from U-verse because FSMW wants additional compensation to provide those games. Thus, 130 of the 150 games broadcast by FSMW will be available on U-verse.

By the way, have you read the contract between AT&T and FSMW?

Ish Kabibble wrote:

If the agreement was for 140 games then FSMW owes AT&T nothing and is well within their rights to request more money for the extra games.

That's an odd comment. FSMW will broadcast 150 Cardinals games this year. 20 of those games will be withheld from U-verse because FSMW wants additional compensation to provide those games. Thus, 130 of the 150 games broadcast by FSMW will be available on U-verse.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

No and neither have you. If the contract signed between AT&T and FSMW was for the 130 games then the additional games are not part of that. Agreement . I must be right or fox would not have been able to charge all these providers for the additional games. But no I have not read that agreement and neither have you.

No and neither have you. If the contract signed between AT&T and FSMW was for the 130 games then the additional games are not part of that. Agreement . I must be right or fox would not have been able to charge all these providers for the additional games. But no I have not read that agreement and neither have you.

Since it was a multi year contract, and FoxSports would not know what and how many games they would be broadcasting in future years, I doubt that kind of deteail would be in the contract. But since AT&T is not suing FSMW for breach of contract there must be some wording that allows for this stunt of blacking out certain games. (Kinda like AT&Ts terms of up to certain speeds for internet, changing of package pricing each year... yada yada yada.)

Since it was a multi year contract, and FoxSports would not know what and how many games they would be broadcasting in future years, I doubt that kind of deteail would be in the contract. But since AT&T is not suing FSMW for breach of contract there must be some wording that allows for this stunt of blacking out certain games. (Kinda like AT&Ts terms of up to certain speeds for internet, changing of package pricing each year... yada yada yada.)

No and neither have you. If the contract signed between AT&T and FSMW was for the 130 games then the additional games are not part of that. Agreement . I must be right or fox would not have been able to charge all these providers for the additional games. But no I have not read that agreement and neither have you.

You correct. I have not read the agreement and neither have you; therefore, you can't speculate about the details of the agreement.

Ish Kabibble wrote:

No and neither have you. If the contract signed between AT&T and FSMW was for the 130 games then the additional games are not part of that. Agreement . I must be right or fox would not have been able to charge all these providers for the additional games. But no I have not read that agreement and neither have you.

You correct. I have not read the agreement and neither have you; therefore, you can't speculate about the details of the agreement.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Since it was a multi year contract, and FoxSports would not know what and how many games they would be broadcasting in future years, I doubt that kind of deteail would be in the contract. But since AT&T is not suing FSMW for breach of contract there must be some wording that allows for this stunt of blacking out certain games. (Kinda like AT&Ts terms of up to certain speeds for internet, changing of package pricing each year... yada yada yada.)

Well, FSMW is providing alternate programming to U-verse in place of the 20 games. Thus, a breach of the contract would not occur. The agreement would be that programming is provide on FSMW as opposed to a specific count as to the number of games that will be provided.

The exact number of games that will be broadcast on FSMW would be difficult to predict because some games may selected during the course of the season to be broadcast on ESPN or Fox.

bri_man_65 wrote:

Since it was a multi year contract, and FoxSports would not know what and how many games they would be broadcasting in future years, I doubt that kind of deteail would be in the contract. But since AT&T is not suing FSMW for breach of contract there must be some wording that allows for this stunt of blacking out certain games. (Kinda like AT&Ts terms of up to certain speeds for internet, changing of package pricing each year... yada yada yada.)

Well, FSMW is providing alternate programming to U-verse in place of the 20 games. Thus, a breach of the contract would not occur. The agreement would be that programming is provide on FSMW as opposed to a specific count as to the number of games that will be provided.

The exact number of games that will be broadcast on FSMW would be difficult to predict because some games may selected during the course of the season to be broadcast on ESPN or Fox.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Why is U-verse the only carrier NOT showing all of the FSMW broadcasts? It's been over a year and this issue still isn't resolved? And AT&T can provide absolutely no answers to any questions raised. The only alternative is to find another carrier that is responsive enough to its customers.

Why is U-verse the only carrier NOT showing all of the FSMW broadcasts? It's been over a year and this issue still isn't resolved? And AT&T can provide absolutely no answers to any questions raised. The only alternative is to find another carrier that is responsive enough to its customers.

I've tried and tried to get an answer or information about the lack of Cardinals games and it's impossible. I called the 800 number and spoke to some young gentleman in another country somewhere in the world who didn't have the slightest idea of what I was asking or even what channel FSM is. He did guarantee me compensation for not being able to watch all of the games but wouldn't commit to what that compensation might be. My advice is to get out and get out now and find a carrier who cares about its customers.

I've tried and tried to get an answer or information about the lack of Cardinals games and it's impossible. I called the 800 number and spoke to some young gentleman in another country somewhere in the world who didn't have the slightest idea of what I was asking or even what channel FSM is. He did guarantee me compensation for not being able to watch all of the games but wouldn't commit to what that compensation might be. My advice is to get out and get out now and find a carrier who cares about its customers.

bbergholtz wrote:Absolutely not resolved and it's impossible to get a straight answer out of ANYONE at AT&T. I've had it with this silly nonsense. I'm finding another carrier who is responsive to its customers.

Actually, the dispute is pretty clear. Beginning last season, FSMW acquired an additional 20 Cardinal games per season that were previously broadcast on KSDK (Channel 5). FSMW has requested a surcharge above the existing contract amount with AT&T in order to provider those games to U-verse. AT&T feel that the games should be provided as part of the existing contract and does not feel that the extra fees are warranted because those extra costs would be passed on the U-verse customers. The sides don't see things the same way.

bbergholtz wrote:Absolutely not resolved and it's impossible to get a straight answer out of ANYONE at AT&T. I've had it with this silly nonsense. I'm finding another carrier who is responsive to its customers.

Actually, the dispute is pretty clear. Beginning last season, FSMW acquired an additional 20 Cardinal games per season that were previously broadcast on KSDK (Channel 5). FSMW has requested a surcharge above the existing contract amount with AT&T in order to provider those games to U-verse. AT&T feel that the games should be provided as part of the existing contract and does not feel that the extra fees are warranted because those extra costs would be passed on the U-verse customers. The sides don't see things the same way.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

This is the scenario St Louis residents are faced with. 1/8 the the Cardinals games (20 out of 162), which were previously available on "free" tv, are now only available on a cable station. The cable network asked the cable providers for an additional fee to carry the extra games. The cable provider won't pay the additional fee for those games. Now Cardinals' fans with ATT UVerse cannot watch the 20 games in question.

What if 2 of the 16 Dallas Cowboys games were taken off Fox and put on Fox Sports in Dallas? Wouldn't Fox Sports want more money from its cable systems? Wouldn't a Dallas-based company (ATT) pay the fee to carry those extra games?

This is the scenario St Louis residents are faced with. 1/8 the the Cardinals games (20 out of 162), which were previously available on "free" tv, are now only available on a cable station. The cable network asked the cable providers for an additional fee to carry the extra games. The cable provider won't pay the additional fee for those games. Now Cardinals' fans with ATT UVerse cannot watch the 20 games in question.

What if 2 of the 16 Dallas Cowboys games were taken off Fox and put on Fox Sports in Dallas? Wouldn't Fox Sports want more money from its cable systems? Wouldn't a Dallas-based company (ATT) pay the fee to carry those extra games?

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Mike Liut wrote:Fans would demand they see their beloved "Boys play. It would be a public relations nightmare for ATT. They would have to cave to public opinion.

I doubt that they would cave to public opinion.

U-verse has still not picked up the Longhorn Network despite the fact that they are headquartered in Texas, provide service to the Austin market, and have more customers in Texas than any other state. If you visited their Facebook page last year, you would have seen more angry messages about U-verse not carrying the Longhorn Network than about not carrying the additional 20 Cardinal games on FSMW. I mean what other state would you think they would add the Longhorn Network to other than Texas?

I have not noticed AT&T caving into public opinion on these types of issues.

Mike Liut wrote:Fans would demand they see their beloved "Boys play. It would be a public relations nightmare for ATT. They would have to cave to public opinion.

I doubt that they would cave to public opinion.

U-verse has still not picked up the Longhorn Network despite the fact that they are headquartered in Texas, provide service to the Austin market, and have more customers in Texas than any other state. If you visited their Facebook page last year, you would have seen more angry messages about U-verse not carrying the Longhorn Network than about not carrying the additional 20 Cardinal games on FSMW. I mean what other state would you think they would add the Longhorn Network to other than Texas?

I have not noticed AT&T caving into public opinion on these types of issues.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

No, this is 100% NOT resolved and you will miss 20 games if you have u-verse. 2 have already been blacked out after yesterday's game. AT&T does not talk about and wants to keep everyone in the dark. See the link below for the most up to date info out there:

Per the article, this is 100% a u-verse issue, they are the only local provider who won't pay FSM the additional fee for these game. The AT&T sales people tell everyone that they think this will be resolved soon, which is completely untrue. That was same time LAST YEAR. Do what I am doing and speak with your wallet.

Charter is cheaper by quite a bit for the same service level AND all the Cardinal games...so i guess the AT&T business model is crappy and passes more costs to the subscribers. YOU CAN GET ALL GAMES, just get any other provider besides AT&T...

I bet they delete this post...

No, this is 100% NOT resolved and you will miss 20 games if you have u-verse. 2 have already been blacked out after yesterday's game. AT&T does not talk about and wants to keep everyone in the dark. See the link below for the most up to date info out there:

Per the article, this is 100% a u-verse issue, they are the only local provider who won't pay FSM the additional fee for these game. The AT&T sales people tell everyone that they think this will be resolved soon, which is completely untrue. That was same time LAST YEAR. Do what I am doing and speak with your wallet.

Charter is cheaper by quite a bit for the same service level AND all the Cardinal games...so i guess the AT&T business model is crappy and passes more costs to the subscribers. YOU CAN GET ALL GAMES, just get any other provider besides AT&T...

I bet they delete this post...

Re: Fox Sports Midwest - 20 Cardinal games are blacked out on U-Verse AGAIN in 2012